Convention on the Rights of the Child - How can a Malaysian policeman deny children below 15 their freedom of peaceful assembly?

Two members of the ‘Himpunan Hijau’ organising committee are expected to be charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, for allowing children under the age of 15 to participate in a rally last September...

"We will be charged under Section 15 of the Act, with allowing the participants below 15 to enter (the venue)," Wong said when contacted today.

The rally was held on Sept 2 last year at Padang Kompleks Sukan in Bukit Koman, to protest the use of cyanide in gold mining operations by Raub Australian Gold Mine (RAGM).

More than 10,000 people attended the gathering. They then marched to the RAGM office when the company’s representative failed to show up to accept a memorandum from the organiser.

Let's us not forget that Malaysia has ratified/signed  the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that recognizes the rights of children to freedom of peaceful assembly (Art. 15) and freedom of expression.. 

What was this protest about ...'protesting the use of cyanide in gold mining operations' - so it is an health issue...and an environmental issue - which surely affects all human persons including children, and as such to deny children the right to protest...to exercise their right to freedom of assembly would be going against the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Does the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 deprive a child from the  freedom of peaceful assembly? No, it does not because the law makers knew that it would be wrong. 

Well, they are being charged under section 15m being the 'restrictions and conditions' that can be imposed by the police. Well, look at  section 2 (a) - (g), and there is no mention about placing restrictions based on a age of a person...or a child, so this policeman relied on para 2(h) any other matters the Officer in charge of the police District deems necessary or expedient in relation to the assembly. But should not these 'any other matters' be something like what Parliament specifically mentioned in (a) to (g)... I believe so.

15  Restrictions and conditions [PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY ACT 2012]

(1) The Officer in charge of the police District may impose restrictions and conditions on an assembly for the purpose of security or public order, including the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.
(2) The restrictions and conditions imposed under this section may relate to-

(a) the date, time and duration of assembly;
(b) the place of assembly;
(c) the manner of the assembly;
(d) the conduct of participants during the assembly;
(e) the payment of clean-up costs arising out of the holding of the assembly;
(f) any inherent environmental factor, cultural or religious sensitivity and historical significance of the place of assembly;
(g) the concerns and objections of persons who have interests; or
(h) any other matters the Officer in charge of the police District deems necessary or expedient in relation to the assembly.

(3) Any person who fails to comply with any restrictions and conditions under this section commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit.

So, here we have a policeman setting a condition/restriction which not only is not there in the Act, but also goes against the Convention on the Rights of the Child(CRC).

WHY WOULD CHILDREN BE PRESENT IN A PROTEST?

1-  The child chooses be part of the protest and exercises his/her freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly

2-    The child is there because the parent(or someone with 'loco parentis') brought the child. Why did they do that? Maybe to educate the child as to values and principles, to educate by way of example...'stand up for your rights', when you see something wrong do something about it,....

Maybe also that parents are not rich enough to have 'domestic workers' or someone to look after their kids. Should mothers or fathers sacrifice their right to protest and/or to participate in peaceful assembly because they have to stay home and look after kids... or should they come as a family for a protest action - more so a protest action that is against something they believe may have a negative impact to the health of human beings(including their family) and the environment.Were the police providing 'child care facilities' or creches so that people could leave their little ones and take part in a peaceful assembly? 

I am of the opinion that no one should be charged for such as offence.... more so since that condition imposed was a condition that, I believe, is contrary to the CRC....

Relevant extracts  from the Convention on the Rights of the Child are as follows:-

Article 13

1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. 

Article 15

1. States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.

2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 

Article 24

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.

2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:

(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;

(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;

(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;

(d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers;

(e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents;

(f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services. 

3. States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. 

4. States Parties undertake to promote and encourage international co-operation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

'Himpunan Hijau Raub' organisers to face charges

Kow Gah Chie 1:41PM Aug 12, 2013

Two members of the ‘Himpunan Hijau’ organising committee are expected to be charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, for allowing children under the age of 15 to participate in a rally last September.

Committee president Wong Kin Hoong (left) and vice-president Tengku Shahadan Tengku Jaafar have received a summons to be present in a Raub court next Monday.

"We will be charged under Section 15 of the Act, with allowing the participants below 15 to enter (the venue)," Wong said when contacted today.

He said they have been questioned at least five times to date by the police.

Wong said the committee had signed an agreement in which OCPD Wan Mohd Samsudin Wan Osman had set out conditions.

Among these was a ban on child participation and marching, as well as a requirement for the gathering to be conducted in an orderly manner, he said.

"I signed the agreement and Shahadan (right) signed as a witness and seconder," Wong said.

"We will not plead guilty .... the police were at the rally as well. They allowed the children to enter, but are now charging us. It's unfair.”

The Act makes it an offence for a child below 15 to participate in such rallies, while the district police head is empowered to impose conditions in relation to the venue, time, duration and manner of gatherings.

Under Section 15(3), anyone found guilty of failing to comply with the restrictions and conditions is liable to a maximum fine of RM10,000.

Wong further criticised police for this “focus on petty issues”, instead of tackling serious crime.

The rally was held on Sept 2 last year at Padang Kompleks Sukan in Bukit Koman, to protest the use of cynide in gold mining operations by Raub Australian Gold Mine (RAGM).

More than 10,000 people attended the gathering. They then marched to the RAGM office when the company’s representative failed to show up to accept a memorandum from the organiser. - Malaysiakini, 12/8/2013, 'Himpunan Hijau Raub' organisers to face charges